Looking back and looking forward: viewed through the eyes of George Torrance

Assessment of respondent acceptability for preference measures in stuttering

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility of using one or more of four standard economic preference measures to assess health-related quality of life in stuttering, by assessing respondents' views of the acceptability of those measures.

METHOD AND RESULTS

A graphic positioning scale approach was used with 80 adults to assess four variables previously defined as reflecting the construct of respondent acceptability (difficulty of decision making, clarity of text, reasonableness for decision making, and comfort in decision making) for four types of preference measurement approaches (rating scale, standard gamble, time trade-off, and willingness to pay). A multivariate repeated measures analysis of variance (p<.001) and follow-up univariate repeated measures analyses of variance (all p<.01) were all significant, indicating that respondents perceived differences among the preference measurement methods on all four acceptability variables.

CONCLUSION

The rating scale was perceived as the easiest, clearest, most reasonable, and most comfortable tool, but it is not a measure of utility (an economic term for desirability or worth). If utility is the objective, such as for cost-utility analyses in stuttering, then the present results suggest the use of standard gamble (rather than time trade-off). These results also support the use of willingness to pay assessments for cost-benefit analyses in stuttering. These findings supplement results previously obtained for other chronic conditions.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

The reader will be able to: (1) describe how four standard economic preference measures [rating scale (RS), time trade-off (TTO), standard gamble (SG), and willingness to pay (WTP)] can be used in economic analyses; (2) describe how RS, TTO, SG and WTP can be measured; and (3) describe how respondents perceive the use of RS, TTO, SG and WTP in measuring changes in stuttering.

Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: a conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives

Proxy assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQL) may be sought to substitute for, or to complement, patient self-assessment. The viewpoint from which the proxy is asked to assess the patient is a subtle yet important aspect of proxy assessment. Proxy assessments can be elicited by asking a proxy to assess the patient as they think the patient would respond (ie, proxy-patient perspective) or for the proxy to provide their own perspective on the patient's HRQL (ie, proxy-proxy perspective). In this article, we introduce a framework for differentiating between and understanding HRQL assessments according to rater viewpoint. The difference between patient self-assessment and the proxy-patient perspective is defined as the inter-rater gap, whereas the difference between the proxy-patient and proxy-proxy perspective is described as the intra-proxy gap. The inter-rater gap represents the difference between patient self-assessed HRQL and the proxy ability to comprehend the patient view. The extent to which the proxy-proxy perspective is informative will depend upon the proxy's ability to provide reinforcing or complementary information, ie, represented by the intra-proxy gap, on the HRQL of the patient. We refer to the framework to emphasize the importance of delineating between proxy perspectives in study design and HRQL measurement and to guide inquiries into the validity and interpretation of the meaningfulness of the proxy HRQL assessments from each viewpoint. Future research and use of proxy raters of HRQL in clinical trials, population health monitoring, resource allocation, and clinical management can be informed by explicit consideration of the suggested framework.